Time for Anglicans to divorce

This is a longer version of an oped in the paper today. There is also a news story about the Primates, on how Sentamu might be excluded from the meeting and the significance of Archbishop Okoh's arrival in Tanzania.

There come times when organisations and the factions within them naturally start to drift apart, for reasons that cannot be wished away by the greater organisation itself. The Primates of the Anglican Communion might wish to consider the benefits of schism when they meet in Tanzania from tomorrow, Thursday. There have been many schisms in the Christian Church. The Great Schism was between East and West in 1054. The Reformation was a whole series of disruptions between the 14th and 17th centuries. In both, the seeds were sown long before the splits. Just as now, the differences were deep-seated and often cultural as well as theological. In retrospect, it is possible to argue that these schisms were necessary to allow the different churches to go their own way in freedom and faith. There seems little purpose in unity if the factions within an organisation cannot see eye to eye with each other any more.

(Pic above shows Jim Rosenthal, the Communion's communications director, briefing the press this morning, Wednesday, in a poolside room at the White Sands hotel. The briefing was security-guarded by a fearsomely-muscled South African imported specially for the business. Journalists learned that Archbishop Rowan had breakfast with Archbishops Akinola and Chew, although whether they ate fried or scrambled eggs was not disclosed. Wales and North India's Primates are not at the meeting. Archbishop Rowan has also made it clear that Bishop Jefferts Schori's presence at the meeting is "absolute and by invitation". Also, Jim emphasised that there would be no substitutes allowed for the absent Primates.)

Comment on the op-ed schism article is appearing on not too much, standfirm, biblebeltblogger, daily episcopalian, david's journal, comes the dawn and drinking at the white horse inn. Read Colin Coward's moving article about the fractured personal relationships at Dar es Salaam. Inclusive Church is also blogging the meeting.

I've also been asked about it by Matt Kennedy for StandFirm. The report also features David Ould.

In the West, secular liberalism has entailed the emancipation of homosexuals in all walks of life, apart from in the mainstream churches. Advances in post-war secular society have taken the criminality out of sexual orientation, while at the same time the churches have been determined to ensure the sin remains. It is no surprise that it has now become an issue of such combustibility in the Anglican Church, which is no longer solely the child of its Western birthplace. Anglicans in the African and Asian provinces of the Global South outnumber those in the West, and are appalled at the Western Church’s accommodation of liberal ideals.

Nigeria’s Peter Akinola, leader of the Orthodox and a likely “primus inter pares” for a new Global South Church, is not going to compromise. Nor is the pro-gay new US Primate, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, who could end up leading a new Episcopal Catholic Church. Dr Akinola would see himself as in the Lutheran tradition: "Here I stand. I can do  no other." Dr Schori would see herself in exactly the same way. And so would the US Bishop whose consecration in 2003 triggered the crisis that was going to happen anyway, the openly gay Gene Robinson.

No Communion is big enough for these three Luthers, all equally sincere in their faith and convictions, all nailing opposing theses to their church doors. These are people who see so far from eye to eye that it is right and proper that they should go their separate ways. And there is no shame in that. There is an historical continuity in schism, reflected in the recent pasts of our political parties, in particular the Labour Party. Historically there are always critical moments and for the Anglican Communion, this is just such a moment.

The Anglican Church was founded in the first place on the divorce of a King. It defies the reason that gave it birth therefore that it should now be resist its own internal divorce in the name of Church unity. The price for this notional unity, if pursued at all costs, will be continuous factionalism over an issue which is giving the Church a bad name and making appear obsessed with sex.

An obsession with unity is blinding Anglican leaders from seeing the truth now facing them. It is time for the Anglican Communion to divide up the assets and divorce. It would be a better, braver and more realistic course of action to separate, than to conpound failure by retaining against all reason the conditions in which the failure occurred, the conditions of a unity based on a relationship that no longer works.

Comments

[John Rae]

In response to Ruth's article 6 Feb 2007 - send missionaries to halt church decline

I've been an active church member for 60 years and despair of the church hierarchy.

I thought missionary work was what the church paid bishops to do? Should the clergy not be refocusing on these essentials rather than getting bogged down in administration?

If the Anglican church feels unpaid missionaries from Africa would do a better job than the existing clergy a) why do they think so, b) if they are right why are we paying the clergy to do such a poor job?

The Tiller report (c1992), commissioned by the Anglican Church offered ways forward on just these issues, amongst others - why haven't the church establishment taken on board the recommendations after all these years. It's not surprising the church is in decline when its leaders are so determined not to listen to calls for new direction.

John Rae

[J Pearce]

"No one is stable in their sexuality and we all need gods help to order it properly."

Nurse, the curtains! This has to be the most utterly ridiculous comment I have ever come across. On several levels. It appears to imply that sex itself is disordered, unless you adhere to some (undefined, I note) regimen of sexual conduct, as prescribed by "Gods" (which "Gods" are these, then?! I was under the impression from Christians that there was only one!).

Would it be dangerous of me to point out, Deb, that there are many people who really just do not struggle with their sexuality? At all? And that they are very comfortable with it!?

I think the real issue, is the fact that you are struggling with the sexuality of others. Which is rather unhealthy, given that its a private matter.

[Frank Schnittgerf]

Jill - I was merely responding to the implication in Simons post that all gays had issues with their sexuality and should on that basis, and on that basis alone, debar themselves from the Priesthood. As you say, not even the conservative Churches hold this position.

And if we all, as Deb says, have issues with our sexuality, then that too, is no basis for discriminating against people - accept for those with criminal tendencies. We are all sinners, and we are all called to serve Christ. But some are being turned away by His Church.

I also think Sharon is right when she says that homosexuality is only one amongst many that disturbs conservatives. Church teaching has changed over the years on many things - e.g. slavery, illegitamate children, evolution, divorce and the position of women, and most people would accept these changes as for the better or at least a necessary recognition of the realities of life. Many of these changes are about recognising all people as God's creatures and refsuing to treat some as second class citizens or worse. But there isn't much point in having a Church at all if you don't believe in God.

[Jill]

And you, Frank, are making an error. No-one is debarred from the priesthood because he is gay. We have had many many fine priests, bishops and even an Archbishop of Canterbury who were gay but CELIBATE!

[Sharon]

I am so tired of hearing that the issue is homosexuals in the church. When I talk to conservatives within the Anglican communion, the frustration comes from the denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ by the liberals, not homosexuality. Homosexuality is an issue, but it is not the main issue that disturbs conservatives. The Episcopal church elected a woman as Presiding Bishop who sounds frighteningly similar to a Unitarian, not an Anglican. THAT is the rub!

[Deb]

Who said that they should be barred from the prieshood because they are gay.What you are saying is that somehow they will never have problems with their sexuality!!!! If I lust after someone its a problem...gays dont lust then? If I resort to pornography I need help! gays dont struggle with that? No one is stable in their sexuality and we all need gods help to order it properly.

[Frank Schnittger]

I am afraid you, Deb and Simon, are both making the same logical error. Certainly some gays may have problems with their sexuality, and very few would be qualified to be a brain surgeon. In that regard they are no different than anyone else.

But what you are saying is that ALL gays, no matter how stable they are in terms of their sexuality, no matter how brilliant qualified as a brain surgeon, should not be allowed to practice, solely because they are gay.

By all means debar the psycho-sexually unstable, or the unqualified from the Priesthood because they are unqualified or unstable, but not simply because they are gay.

[Deb]

Frank thats a silly comment to make.Are you just referring to those gay people who are in relationships. There are many people who struggle with their sexuality gay and straight, or may i hasten to add, bi sexual or those who those whose sexuality is ordered towards children,or being promiscous,or those who have had affairs. There are huge amounts of people getting help for their sexuality including gay people, many of whom i am talking to.
You should try talking to some and get your head out of the clouds that sexuality is just straight and gay and that everyone is fine with it.

[Frank Schnittger]

"Why should people dealing with issues about their own sexuality, put themselves forward as a bridge between heaven and earth ?" - Simon

They don't have an issue with their sexuality, Simon, you do. And Anglican's don't need Priests to act as a bridge between heaven and earth - they fly direct!

[Simon]

Vatican II:"If Anglicanism splits over homosexuality this will not be remembered in church history as a noble or tragic fate, but as a triumph of immaturity."

Hey - there has been homosexuality throughout human history. Alexander was without doubt the greatest warrior there has ever been, and his closest sexual union was with a man. The issue here is about priests, and the sacred tradition handed down as close as we can know, that says priests should be males that are ideally single, else married to a woman. The "Spirit if Vatican II" did not oppose sacred tradition or sacred scripture. If people feel their lives can only be fulfilled by same sex relationships then that's up to them. What is not acceptable is people demanding a role they are nor appropriate for. Its no more contentious than saying a brain surgeon should meet certain criteria regarding a steady hand and an ability to differentiate between dendrites and axons.

Why should people dealing with issues about their own sexuality, put themselves forward as a bridge between heaven and earth ? If its the only job they can find then why not say so ? The holy sacraments are not a job!

[Joel]

As Ruth indicates, there is no church that will hold both Bp. Schori and Bp. Akinola. We have all known that the divorce was coming, so why not get it over with? The ”children“ are grown-ups, so let them decide which parent gets custody. (Except of course that Bp. Schori wants all the land within the U.S., no matter whether PECUSA or the individual parishes paid for it).

[Frank Schnittger]

Whilst I accept the comments made above that it is inappropriate to refer to the break-up of a fellowship as a "divorce", with all the legal issues of distribution of assets that this entails, nevertheless, at the level of the individual Parish or Diocese, this is precisely what may result.

Certainly there is no case for the Church of Nigeria claiming the assets of TEC, but within each Diocese and Parish there could be a power struggle between factions supporting the Akinola/TEC sides as to who will control the assets.

We are not talking about one divorce, therefore, but potentially thousands with relationships and communities rent asunder in each province. Why are we letting this happen, and who benefits?

[Frank Schnittger]

For those readers puzzled by the appearance of a "Letter to the Times" based on an extract from a post of mine above, let me say that I have not written any Letter to the Times, have not authorised the publication of an extract from my post, and am certainly embarrassed that a few out of context remarks have been published over my name and address without my consent.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

"No Communion is big enough for these three Luthers, all equally sincere in their faith and convictions, all nailing opposing theses to their church doors."

Their quarrel, unlike Luther's, is not about an articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, but just about homosexuality -- and it is a quarrel going on everywhere, not just in Anglican circles. Many families quarrel about this -- to urge schism is defeatist and would parallel the attitude of homophobic parents who disown their children, or gay youths who turn their backs on their parents as too troublesome to deal with.

If Anglicanism splits over homosexuality this will not be remembered in church history as a noble or tragic fate, but as a triumph of immaturity.

Also, nobody's positions are written in stone. None of the parties have the final and complete wisdom in the very fluid and open-ended debate about homosexuality. The human realities of gay and lesbian experience are far more complex than ideologues can handle. Hence the wisdom of Lambeth in calling for ongoing listening to the experience of gays and lesbians.

These are people who see so far from eye to eye that it is right and proper that they should go their separate ways. And there is no shame in that. There is an historical continuity in schism, reflected in the recent pasts of our political parties, in particular the Labour Party. Historically there are always critical moments and for the Anglican Communion, this is just such a moment.

[Christopher]

Alice said "In the larger context of the Anglican Communion, I would rather speak of "pruning" dead branches. There is only one Church and the Church...etc."

A cynic might add "and this is another way of saying history is written by the victors".

[Bruce Linsenmayer]

Let's be clear here, there is not today, nor has there ever been, a "marriage" relationship within the Communion.

The Anglican Consultative Council describes itself (The Communion) as a fellowship of Churches working together for common understanding and good. See http://www.aco.org/acc/

Those that desire a split prefer the marriage metaphor because it implies divorce, which implies property sharing and is structured in law.

When a fellowship dissolves, there are no legal procedures or laws that decide who gets what. It’s just over and the player’s leave with what they brought and take nothing from the rest.

The marriage metaphor is just wrong and people should stop using it.

[Peter Carrell]

I agree with Graham Kings and others who point out that 'divorce' is a nightmare scenario. It would be as though when the parents divorce all their married children and grandchildren would also have to divorce. The last thing we need in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia is a conflict over whether we are aligned with Schori, Akinola, Williams or Sentamu or any two or three thereof!! We (the whole Communion) can do better and by God's grace and our humility before each other we will!

[Bruce Garner]

A colleague from another list, Nigel Taber-Hamilton, notes correctly that the use of divorce with regard to the Anglican Communion situation is not an accurate metaphor. He further points out that a marriage (from which a divorce occurs) is a legally binding relationship whose dissolution involves negotiated settlements, legal settlements. Since the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of churches, marriage and divorce do not apply. Again, his observations are correct.

From my perspective, unless we are discussing polygamy, a marriage takes place between two people. A subsequent divorce dissolves the relationship between those same two people. That's hardly our case here.

A fellowship is essentially a friendship. There is no legal action that took place to create the friendship/fellowship and none is required to end it.

Nigel also notes that the use of marriage and divorce metaphors also provide some basis for dividing asssets, as in the case of a divorce between two people. On the other hand, the ending of a friendship or fellowship provides no such basis. The friends or fellows go their separate ways.

I am in full agreement with him that any form of splitting of the Anglican Communion is not properly characterized as a divorce.

On a different note, I find it most interesting that the issue of this really being about power and authority keeps getting sidestepped. It's even more interesting to me that a female columnist would not recognize all of this as it relates to the patriarchy and its waning degree of influence. One of the telling reasons this isn't about Scriptural Authority is that there are dozens of issues other than those about human sexuality where provinces of the communion disagree and still have no interest in either leaving or expelling others. The same is true of all Christendom. So if it really was all about Scriptural authority, we have lots of topics to fight and disagree over that carry more weight than human sexuality.

The bottom line always remains: We can remain together if we WANT to remain together. The table is large enough for all. It's also God's table not ours. We don't issue the invitations and we don't get to choose who gets to sit where, that prerogative belongs to the One hosting the table. It does not belong to a single Primate anywhere or any other person on this side of paradise. I will always make room at the table for even those with whom I disagree, despite the reciprocal rarely taking place.

Bruce Garner, Atlanta GA

[Nigel Taber-Hamilton]

Once again the claim is made that the situation in the Anglican Communion can best be described through the metaphor of marriage and divorce

I believe this is a flawed argument because the metaphor does not fit the institution. An examination of the language used by the Anglican Consultative Council to describe new members describes the Communion as "a fellowship of Churches."

It would be hard for anyone to describe the sacrament of marriage as simply "a fellowship of two people".

Or, at least, if that is an accurate description of marriage then what, in the North Atlantic Community, is referred to as "marriage" is really something else - something much more profound, much more meaningful, much more diverse, much broader, and - especially - much more sacred than merely a "fellowship."

The reason this is an issue, of course, is that if the metaphor of "marriage" applies to the Communion then so does the metaphor of "divorce" - and this is greatly convenient for the Neo-Puritans, who can then argue for the consequences of "divorce" - a sharing of assets.

But if the metaphor does not apply - if, in fact, the Communion is a "fellowship" - then it becomes harder to argue for exclusion, because a fellowship is a looser, less structured, less hidebound, less rule-oriented entity. One where a generosity of spirit is welcoming of diversity, and there is a willingness to accept divergent perspectives (which is how the Communion has always been understood until the Neo-Puritans started prosecuting their agenda).

It is, in other words, based on friendship, not on legal sanction.

Friends - when they break-up - are not in a position to demand the assets of the other. Rather, it is their moral responsibility to return what is not theirs. And so the law says.

And, in a fellowship, it is possible for former friends to remain part of the common community, unless they decide to absent themselves.

I believe we must confront and condemn the use of this inappropriate metaphor, and challenge those who propose it to explain exactly how the Anglican Fellowship of Churches resembles something other than friends sharing a common origin, connected to each other by common allegiance to a way of being deeply rooted in the Celtic faith of our ancestors, which respects all of creation (_all_ of Creation) as a place where we may encounter God.

[Cassie]

"... It is about the authority of scripture."

And who has the power to assert that their interpretation of it is correct. Q.E.D.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Divorce is the analogy I used in my essay "Divorce Episcopal Style" (posted at VOL and Drell's Descants). In the larger context of the Anglican Communion, I would rather speak of "pruning" dead branches. There is only one Church and the Church is defined by its message: salvation by faith and repentance through the divine Person Jesus Christ, the only way to the Father. Any group that proclaims a different message is not the Church, no matter how much it may dress up like the Church.

[Frank Schnittger]

Jill, where is the authority of Scripture when it comes to divorce, that most practiced of evangelical institutions? And this despite the fact that Jesus spoke about divorce directly and explicitly whereas teaching on Homosexuality is based on St. Paul and disputed inferences about Christ's attitude to the Old Testament?

It seems that proponents of Scriptural Authority are remarkably selective in those aspects of Scripture they chose to implement - where is their endorsement of genocide, fratricide, stoning, slavery, the displacement of whole peoples, and the treatment of women as chattels? Oh I forgot some of this is happening in Africa under the benevolent eye of Akinola and some of his associates

[jim nuzzo]

The issue, as it is so often, involves textual interpretative styles that create differing definitions of the same text. The history of the cleavages within the Benedicitine family, about which I have published, demonstrate that the "divorces" were always, at their core, profound shifts in hermaneutic technique. At some point, dialogue becomes impossible because the two groups speak different languages with different assumptions.

TEC PB recognizes this, even if not explicitly. In her interview with USA Today, she spoke of the two "strands" of Christianity, one that was atonement based and the other that was "more gracious." Leaving aside any comments on her characterizations, what she said is true. There are two differing perspectives, that can not be bridged by some elegant Cramnerian poetry.

The important point, as it is in any divorce, is that the two sides do not part in such a way that the "children" get needlessly hurt.

[Mike Homfray]

Ruth ; I completely agree. This is something I have been saying for a number of years.

It will mean a split in the Church of England too, of course.

[Maduka]

I think Archbishop Okoh was a padre in the Nigerian Army. That does not elevate him to the status of military tactician.

[Jill]

Tom, you win the prize for the best post so far! (IMHO anyhow.)

I think divorce, although painful, is inevitable; the split has already happened and I don't think any amount of marriage guidance counselling is going to reconcile the two factions. So we may well have to rely on the 'Gamaliel' principle - what is Of God will prosper, and what is not will eventually die.

Frank, I disagree with you that the reason for the split is about power. It is about the authority of scripture.

[Chris McMullen]

Like you, Ruth, I do not see schism as a completely bad thing. Before I was confirmed in the Anglican Communion and became a priest I was a minister in a church with a Scottish Presbyterian heritage. The Presby's went through many schisms in their definitive years, theologically over obscure differences in the relation between kirk and state; culturally over the aspirations of the disenfranchised and the leadership of the nobility and educated classes. These schisms produced vitality, mission and growth in each of the new "churches". After several generations the majorities in each of the fragments reunited in a church with a sharper understanding of its identity; the balance of unity and diversity that best suited Presbyterian life and mission; and a heritage full of heroism and brilliant (if sometimes obscure) thinking.

If only the "divorce" were more readily understood as a "separation", and amicably arranged in each province. But the revisionists know that their theologies cannot generate commitment and support, and that they must depend upon the orthodox they stigimatize and silence in order to fund and recruit for their programs of accomodating to post-christian trends. Like leaches on a fish, they depend for life on that which they kill. So I doubt an "amicable separation" will be possible.

[Tom Jackson]

Even as Christians, in the turmoil of earthly existence we sometimes lose sight of the message of our faith; the battle has been won; Christ has already triumphed!

Now this doesn't mean that like the Thessalonians we sit and wait, bask in the knowledge of that victory but it should cast a different perspective over issues such as now faced in our Anglican community.

Some atheist and agnostic views expressed in this blog suggest that the Anglican community falls apart following schism; what rubbish! Painful it may well prove to be but fatal? No way!

Whatever course is eventually decided, the Church as we know it will survive and - as this article suggests - all sides may well benefit from a period of separation.

There is no certainty about that but we can be certain that strong in our faith, the victory of Christ has already determined the final outcome.

[Simon]

Christopher: "christianity has proved itself inherently fissile."

On the other hand, you could say the original Christian Church has proven itself less fissile than any secular body or organisation in history! Any human body is capable of being split, so over a billion people standing essentially unified on core beliefs is distinctly unusual in human terms.

It would be more accurate to say fission begets fission. The Catholic Church surely represents an assembly with enough critical mass to form a chain reaction. After all anything that is made up of humans has free neutrons banging around! The elemental foundation must therefore remain in its original natural (and naturally fissionable) form (cf. 238Uranium) and not absorb the artificial changes that alter its fundamental nature (cf. 239Uranium) which automatically then decays into a highly fissile form (cf. 239Plutonium).

Apart from the awful handling of the most destructive free neutrons (cf. paedophile priests) that sadly seem to exist in any human assembly, it could be said that much of what the Church stands for to the bewilderment of many in the secular world, and many protestants, can be explained by nuclear physics!

[Frank Schnittger]

I'm not sure that a "divorce" would solve anything. Firstly each Province would have to decide which side to align itself to - a recipe for further internecine strife at the level of every Parish and Diocese in every country.

Secondly there could be splits within each Province, with consequent disputes over property etc. Only the lawyers will gain.

Thirdly the “communion” could lose a lot of its energy as each side settles into the comfort zone of its own “kind”. Conflict can be creative and it can raise the energy and commitment of all. What will Akinola do when he doesn’t have TEC to fulminate against?

But most of all, many, rather than align themselves with any splinter, will simply say “a plague on both your houses” and simply join the great unwashed of secular society who pursue their faith privately, if at all.

Either way, leadership will pass from Canterbury to America and Nigeria, not that that in itself is necessarily a bad thing. But it will be ironic that in a rapidly globalising world, with more and more trade, tourism and international human intercourse at every level of society, that the Anglican Communion, one of the few truly international non commercial, non-political bodies in the world, will fall apart.

I have no doubt that future generations of Christians, if there are many, will wonder why, with a bit more patience and wisdom, today’s leaders couldn’t have held it together.

That Global South, with its greater membership, should seek a greater say in the scheme of things is understandable. They are cutting off their noses to spite their faces, however, if they think they can achieve anything by taking their revenge on their former colonial masters.

Those American and European conservatives who side with them will find they are taking on some very dubious despotic baggage indeed. Conservative Christianity has a rather pathetic history of collaboration with fascistic and despotic regimes of all kinds, but this will mark a new low.

Well might Akinola object to the presence of John Sentamu, and seek to bolster his own forces with an ex-army Colonel in Archbishop Okoh, because Sentamu will have seen it all before during the reign of Idi Amin in Uganda.

But there is something deeply self destructive in conservative Christianity, a latent yearning for martyrdom, a wallowing in post colonial guilt, an obsession with the moral probity and ideological conformity of others.

Somehow it suits them emotionally to make common cause with the oppressed and repressed of Africa, not in the sense of lifting them out of their oppression, but to connive with it through support for the repressive actions of their rulers.

It is no accident that political oppressions and conservative Christianity walk hand in hand in Africa. They are two sides of the same coin. Blame the people for their ills. Make them feel sinful and guilty and deserving of their poverty. Perpetuate their dependency by “helping” them with charitable works that reinforce the stereotypes of western superiority.

Homosexuality is merely the pretext for this split. The real issue is power, and the disarming tendency for the message of Christ to liberate and empower people to take their own place, confidently, in the running of the world. We can’t have that now, can we?

If Akinola and Co. leave it too late their own people will start to question the feudal and despotic power their leaders hold over them. Best destroy all these libertarian ideas at source. And if we can’t do that, let’s shut them out by engineering a Schism.

The political agenda behind the Schismatics is to shut out all those pernicious ideas of Liberal Democracy, equality, and human rights: Those secular ideas of Justice which Ruth concedes but relegates to a subsidiary secular sphere because they challenge the Authoritarian project of Orthodoxy.

These are the dying kicks of feudal forms of religion which have survived in Africa for far longer than they have in Europe or America. Conservatives who pine for the simpler, black and white, moralities and orthodoxies of a Victorian age think they have found their saviour in Africa.

All they have found is a new despotism, and a new mechanism to accelerate the discrediting of Christianity as any part of a modern functioning democratic political system.

Well might Gays hold their heads up high with pride today. They are the new sacrificial lambs on the alter of political expediency. Anybody with any pretence to Christianity will not betray or sell them out. If Akinola wins Christ will have been Crucified again. But only for a little time

[Graham Kings]

Thanks, Ruth, for your article. However, I disagree with you that it is time to split the whole Anglican Communion and have argued the case for a possible way forward in 'To Cleave or To Cleave? The Primates' Meeting in Tanzania'

www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=188

[Steve Hayes]

Since I ceased to be an Anglican more than 20 years ago, it is no longer a matter that concerns me directly, but when I observe the bickering among Anglicans, I am glad that I did not have to endure it for another 20 years.

Nevertheless, I think you are right on: it's time for a divorce because the bickering is not going to stop. When each side's morality is the other side's immorality, there is no tent big enough to hold them all.

In may be worth comparing with the opposite process taking place between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. After two generations of separation, they are getting together again. But in order to keep apart they had to exaggerate their differences, and try to present them as more fundamental than they actually were. Once they dropped the pretence, they could see how much basic agreement there was.

Anglican unity, however is just the opposite. There is unity in superficial things, but diversity in things that each side regards as essential. Divorce does seem the most sensible option.

[Craig R]

You are right to refer to the Church of England's foundation as shedding some light on the present conflict. However, it was not so much the King's divorce that necessitated the 16th Cent schism as the desire for English autonomy. No foreign power, temporal or spiritual, was to have any say in England. It is therefore ironic that those who are heirs to a tradition that was deperate to shake off the interference of the Pope (i.e. evangelicals) are now appealing to a bishop in Nigeria to interfere in the internal workings of autonomous churches.

[Christopher]

Well said, Ruth. It seems that there will never be agreement because christianity has proved itself inherently fissile. Unfortunately in a divorce there are consequences for the children. After the great divorce of the Reformation Europe was split asunder and the following generations suffered the interminable wars of religion. Brecht's Mother Courage gives a bleak picture of what has only been repaired with the gradual loss of the power of religion in Europe.

Meanwhile Stephen Bates has reported from the frontline in Dar es Salaam (what an irony in the name - Abode of Peace!) that Primate Akinola is to meet his nemesis there, someone he said never existed, a gay Nigerian christian. SB reports:

One unwelcome guest as far as Archbishop Akinola is concerned has also arrived. Davis Mac-Iyalla, a Nigerian former church worker who has defied the archbishop by coming out as gay and setting up a gay Christian group, is attempting to lobby the meeting. His presence is aggravating to the Nigerian church whose senior members have at various times denigrated him. He said: "It is very dangerous to come out as gay in Nigeria ... you have a big chance of losing your life or your family and friends, and the church now makes things worse. I would expect the church to say it disagrees with me, but not to tell lies. I do exist."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,2012407,00.html

[Jonathan]

Not so easy, as The fault lines run through member churches (at least in the "West") not between them.

As the church is the bride of Christ, I'm not sure that divorce is a good analogy.